Using Sear as a Reference?

[Virgil H]

I feel somewhat foolish here. I have David Sear's books, Roman Coins and Their Values and Greek Imperial Coins. I also have his two volumes on Greek Coins and his Byzantine coin book has been on my list of "to get" books. I see Sear references fairly often, mainly with Greek coins and, until tonight I could grab one of my books and look it up.

I just found a Roman Imperial coin I was researching on the catbikes.ch web site (I believe run by Helvitca and a wonderful resource). The coin referenced as RIC VI Heraclea 18a has an additional reference of Sear 14061. RIC VI 20a has the same Sear reference. I understand that Sear references are often more general than some of the other common references we see, such as RIC and SNG. And, of course, my Sear Roman books have no numbers anywhere near 14061.

I tried to figure out if the 14061 was some sort of code and then discovered that Sear also has a 5 volume series with the same name. That is great, but I do wish he had selected a different name. I now wonder if the coins I have where I use Sear reference numbers as part of my identification may now have two possible meanings that may confuse things in the future. Hopefully, this isn't the same problem for Greek coins as that is where I have used Sear. I am heading into Roman coins now, in addition to Greek, so I want to get a handle on how I do references with the Romans.

Anyway, I am curious if the Sear 5 volume work is worthwhile if I already have the two volumes covering Imperial and Provincial Roman coins. I am assuming that many more coins are covered in the five volumes. I am also aware that Sear Roman references are fairly rarely used and his Greek references I see regularly. I am thinking that using RIC is the way to go for most Roman Imperial coins. Is using a Sear reference (or other reference) helpful when you can't 100% identify a coin, such as with an obscured mintmark? Or do you just go with Emperor and be done with it? I like to get as specific as I can. What do you think?

Thanks,
Virgil

[clueless]

Virgil, I dare to claim that the new 5 volume edition is worth it, the different volumes cover much more than the previous single volume did and you don't have to get all 5 volumes, only the ones covering the period interesting you. If you don't have RIC, then Sear is a must.

Just my 2 bits,

Clueless

[PeterD]

I agree that the 5 volume book is worth it. The first volume is entitled "Roman Coins and their Values: The Millennium Edition" (although this wasn't followed through on the remaining volumes). So I always use the abbreviation RCVM to indicate I mean the 5 volume edition.

[Lech Stępniewski]

Using Sear as reference is better than no reference. But using RIC is better than using Sear. RIC is getting more and more popular and Sear less and less.

[Ron C2]

Sear is the current go to for Byzantine reference numbers. For Roman imperial, it remains RIC. For Greek, most often I see CNG's HGC as the cited reference these days.

[Jay GT4]

My first reference work was Sear millennial edition for the Republic and first century.  I used it exclusively.  However, since focusing on the Flavian's, I bought RIC II and haven't opened Sear since.  Don't get me wrong, Sear is still great but RIC has become my go to.

[Carausius]

The 5 volume work is the "current" version of Sear's Roman Coins and their Values.  Although it's now 5 volumes, it is still limited in coverage and not nearly as scholarly in it's approach to cataloging as RIC for Imperial cons or Crawford for Republican.  It's designed to be easier to use than those more scholarly works - like a handbook.  As a Roman Republican focused collector, I really dislike Volume 1, because it treats gold, silver and bronze separately which does not well-present the contemporaneous issues or give a sense of the Republican coinage as a whole.  Surprisingly, the previous, single-volume edition of Sear RCV is better in its treatment of Republican coins.  I glance at the current Sear from time to time, but I don't use it seriously.  I recommend RIC for Imperial and Crawford for Republican.  Buy RIC by the volume, if possible, because several have been updated recently (in different format sizes, another bone of contention!).  Crawford is available cheaply in paperback editions.

[Virgil H]

Thank you to everyone for their comments. Excellent advice all around. I am thinking that, since I already have Sear in the one volume (plus the Greek Imperial), RIC is what I probably need to be looking at because I only have a couple Republican coins. If that changes, then Crawford for sure. I am beginning to appreciate the various references for various types of coins. I am getting the van Halff book, Coins of Elymais, for Christmas (I know because I got it for my wife to give to me LOL). Hope you all have a great holiday season, although I guess Hannukah is over already.

Thanks all,
Virgil